What the f laws?

[Brian37]

You can add your "Why would this need to be said? Laws that make you scratch your head." My friend John ran across  this one. 

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/...5b4r02qlqk

Which says it is a crime to commit murder wearing bullet proof body armor. IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL EVEN WITHOUT IT!

Golly gee Wally, I guess wearing the body armor makes the person you murder more dead in this case. 

Add your absurd laws to this thread.

[onlinebiker]

You can add your "Why would this need to be said? Laws that make you scratch your head." My friend John ran across  this one. 

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/...5b4r02qlqk

Which says it is a crime to commit murder wearing bullet proof body armor. IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL EVEN WITHOUT IT!

Golly gee Wally, I guess wearing the body armor makes the person you murder more dead in this case. 

Add your absurd laws to this thread.

But you don' t question laws about the capacity of magazines, bayonette lugs, pistol grips or barrel length....

And you don't see your flaw in logic.

Interesting.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When those two lunatics decided to take AKs and rob a bank in North Hollywood the cops had to borrow high-powered rifles from sporting goods stores to deal with the body armor the bad guys were wearing.

So, some places passed the law you cited, because all they have to do is prove that the perps were wearing the armor, no intent needed.

[Brian37]

You can add your "Why would this need to be said? Laws that make you scratch your head." My friend John ran across  this one. 

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/...5b4r02qlqk

Which says it is a crime to commit murder wearing bullet proof body armor. IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL EVEN WITHOUT IT!

Golly gee Wally, I guess wearing the body armor makes the person you murder more dead in this case. 

Add your absurd laws to this thread.

But you don' t question laws about the capacity of magazines, bayonette lugs, pistol grips or barrel length....

And you don't see your flaw in logic.

Interesting.

Oh fuck off! No conflict of logic on my part.

This  bullshit reaction on your part is about protecting a flooded market.

Your bullshit logic, "A ten bullet limit clip doesn't make someone less dead than a 100 round clip."

The body armor cannot be used to murder 9 people in less than 30 seconds. 

You fucking masturbate over firearms like porn. 

You fucking show me a 100 round vest that can be plugged into a spray weapon that holds bullets itself, and I will be the first to call for a ban on it.

BY THE WAY MORON, the law listed above isn't a ban on vests, but is a stupid law that really has nothing to do with motive. THAT is what I found absurd.

Your pathetic attempt to treat a vest as if it were a bullet, or clip or firearm, WHICH IS NOT WHAT I DID HERE, is fucking absurd.

---

When those two lunatics decided to take AKs and rob a bank in North Hollywood the cops had to borrow high-powered rifles from sporting goods stores to deal with the body armor the bad guys were wearing.

So, some places passed the law you cited, because all they have to do is prove that the perps were wearing the armor, no intent needed.

I get that, but it still seems a bit superfluous. If they rob the bank and injure or kill others not wearing body armor, the intent is still there.

In a case like that motive is easy to prove, malice of forethought is easy to prove.

[arewethereyet]

But you don' t question laws about the capacity of magazines, bayonette lugs, pistol grips or barrel length....

And you don't see your flaw in logic.

Interesting.

Oh fuck off! No conflict of logic on my part.

This  bullshit reaction on your part is about protecting a flooded market.

Your bullshit logic, "A ten bullet limit clip doesn't make someone less dead than a 100 round clip."

The body armor cannot be used to murder 9 people in less than 30 seconds. 

You fucking masturbate over firearms like porn. 

You fucking show me a 100 round vest that can be plugged into a spray weapon that holds bullets itself, and I will be the first to call for a ban on it.

BY THE WAY MORON, the law listed above isn't a ban on vests, but is a stupid law that really has nothing to do with motive. THAT is what I found absurd.

Your pathetic attempt to treat a vest as if it were a bullet, or clip or firearm, WHICH IS NOT WHAT I DID HERE, is fucking absurd.

---

When those two lunatics decided to take AKs and rob a bank in North Hollywood the cops had to borrow high-powered rifles from sporting goods stores to deal with the body armor the bad guys were wearing.

So, some places passed the law you cited, because all they have to do is prove that the perps were wearing the armor, no intent needed.

I get that, but it still seems a bit superfluous. If they rob the bank and injure or kill others not wearing body armor, the intent is still there.

In a case like that motive is easy to prove, malice of forethought is easy to prove.

aforethought
[ uh-fawr-thawt, uh-fohr- ]SHOW IPA

EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR

---

adjective
thought of previously; premeditated (usually used predicatively): with malice aforethought.
noun
premeditation; forethought.


Tongue and cheek ranty man...


English motherfucker - do you speak it?

Pulp Fiction reference.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The thing is the courts like to pile on the charges, then negotiate. If they feel like it. In the end the perp has still be charged with those offenses, meaning the law is predisposed to whack his pee-pee harder next time.

[Brian37]

The thing is the courts like to pile on the charges, then negotiate. If they feel like it. In the end the perp has still be charged with those offenses, meaning the law is predisposed to whack his pee-pee harder next time.

Again, I get that. But it still seems to me as superfluous. If those same bank robbers had done the same thing without body armor, how would it change their intent?

[onlinebiker]

The thing is the courts like to pile on the charges, then negotiate. If they feel like it. In the end the perp has still be charged with those offenses, meaning the law is predisposed to whack his pee-pee harder next time.

Again, I get that. But it still seems to me as superfluous. If those same bank robbers had done the same thing without body armor, how would it change their intent?

Ok you clueless schmuck - explain to me what makes a thirty round more deadly than a 10 round.


And before you do - inform us of how many decades of experience you have with both.


Simple fact - a weapon is only as deadly as the aiming capability of said weapon. An experienced shooter can change a magazine in less time than an inexperienced shooter can acquire a target. Simply spraying ammo is far less effective than aimed fire.

I qualified expert with an m-16 and sharpshooter with a 1911a in 1979 - 40 years ago. I have since then owned multiple AR- 15, FN-FAL, AK variants and a sundry of other WWII military weapons. 

I have safely owned, fired, serviced and built firearms for over 40 years.

You? Played Grand Theft Auto? Doom?

And you think you know what the fuck you are talking about?

Sure..

You're an expert.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The thing is the courts like to pile on the charges, then negotiate. If they feel like it. In the end the perp has still be charged with those offenses, meaning the law is predisposed to whack his pee-pee harder next time.

Again, I get that. But it still seems to me as superfluous. If those same bank robbers had done the same thing without body armor, how would it change their intent?

Not the point.

[Athene]

I could've sworn the thread title read: "What are the f laws?"

Whew! I was about ready to clutch my pearls.